What will be the outcome for the 4 people who take the one way trip to mars?

As long as they have a supply of water they can create oxygen. You dont have to keep shiping oxygen out.

If you can guarantee a supply of water.

Can. Water has even been seen in equatorial regions where it was once thought was totally dry. 20 percent of Martian Soil is water.

Want water? Dig. If you heat up a cubic foot of Mars soil, you can harvest around two pints (one liter) of water. We know that now thanks to the
Curiosity rover.

Additionally, there may be even bigger reserves of water deeper down so if they bring along a drill they might just tap into a well.

And if you have enough panel area. And if you get enough sun, year round.

Assuming they only plan on solar power they'd be fine, we know very well the solar flux for different times of the year at different places on Mars.
That's part of what the previous missions were sent there to find. They will have planned for this.

Beyond solar, they could just as well bring along a small nuclear power plant (google SNAP generator).

And if you don't have any breakdowns.

They'll have tools to fix them. They'll also have redundant systems for key things like life support.

Or fires.

Fires on space missions are rarer than on Earth. Mir had one and they managed to put it out. Has the ISS had a fire?

Thus my comment, asphyxiation is the most likely end. I mean, if they land on the Big Rock Candy Mountain, they can grow food, too.

I guess you don't know as much as someone like Robert Zubrin who has studied Mars for years and who is now part of the Mars One team.

Buying one of his books wouldn't be the worse thing in the world to bring you up to speed on the realities of what living on Mars would be
like.

I simply do not understand why people continue to insist going to Mars is a bad idea, that it is "suicidal," and that it should not be done. Why
not? The reasons given so far are lame at best. It sounds like these folks have decided a priori that they don't like this, then have attempted to
support their dislike by bringing up issues that, on the whole, aren't issues at all, are easily surmountable, or that don't matter in the least.
It's not as if they've examined the idea and found these issues that would support not going. They've put the cart before the horse. They've first
decided they don't want to go, then found a myriad of reasons why they shouldn't.

It seems to me these folks do not like the insecurity of even knowing that someone else may want to attempt something they wouldn't do themselves.
Einstein said, "Be brave. Do hard things." But these people are not only not brave and will not do hard things, they don't want anyone else to
either. Instead of being honest and just saying, "I'm too frightened to climb this tall mountain." they say, "No one should climb this tall
mountain because they might get cold and might hurt themselves."

What these people don't seem to get is, it's not their call. They don't get a vote. And yes, they all have a right to their opinion. But expressing
it simply shows their lack of fortitude and their absence of a pioneer spirit, and highlights the depth of character of those willing and excited to
go.

I find it common amongst the badly educated or those on the lower scale of intelligence.

They have no sense of vision or imagination or live just in the present without looking forward or unable to connect the dots.
Worse you have those that are unable to understand a concept and so fear it or try and destroy it.

Frustrating.

Its not enough to be the lowest common denominator but you have to force others down to your level.

Throughout history we have had these numbskulls, they were the ones burning people at the stake for heracy or witchcraft because someone dared come
up with a new idea or train of thought.

By the way there is a diffrence between being skeptical and being closed minded.

I think the Mars one will likley fail. But I think it still should be tried. I dont think they will end up dead but something will go wrong and you
will end up with a race to see who will come get them back which well result in a reason to push more into space and hopefully set up a infrastructure
that will support a real mars and moon colonies.

I knew they had found water, never knew it was to that extent. I really have fallen behind the last few years

This like so many parts of planetary science, astronomy, astrobiology, astrophysics etc is a rapidly changing field so I don't blame you. It takes a
lot of work to stay on top of all the discoveries, which are occurting almost daily.

Here are a couple Space.com articles which go into detail about water on Mars:

One task of crews at Utah's Mars Desert Research Station is to plant and maintain crops for other crews to eat. The Mars Society believes this is a
task that crews on the Red Planet would do as well.

HANKSVILLE, UTAH – How do you whip up boxed macaroni and cheese without margarine or butter? That was a problem I faced early in my rotation at
Utah's Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS) when another crewmember and I were put on food duty.

Since the role of MDRS is to simulate Mars exploration and make us feel like astronauts, we're encouraged to solve problems ourselves. Our commander,
who has been here twice already, quietly worked on other tasks as I combed through cupboards trying to find a substitute.

It's possible there was shelf-stable butter there, but under limited time our solution was to add tuna to the mix. Other crewmates pronounced the
concoction as delicious. Our decision to use tinned corn beef at lunch, however, did not go so well. There's a lot to learn as we keep ourselves fed
at this facility, which is run by the nonprofit Mars Society.

Well, you got two out of three correct. That's a pretty good percentage. First of all, you haven't proven your case. Your reasons for not going are
extremely weak. If you seriously think that every single point you have brought up has somehow been missed by those who are promoting this, then you
are calling THEM dumb clucks. The onus is upon you to prove your issues are actually serious ones, and you have not done that. Every single objection
you have brought up has been anticipated, thought about, and will be solved by the time they leave.

The second issue you got right is that you are smart enough to assess yourself as not being of a pioneering spirit. You don't have to be, of course.
We need people to stay home and till the fields. Regrettably, not everyone gets to go. Those who want to stay home will always be able to do so. If
you don't want to cross the river because you might drown of you attempt it, by all means stay at home. It would be a mistake for anyone to force you
to come along. You would be one helluva roomie, a constant Eeyore complaining about every bump in the road.

The real issue, though, is why you feel compelled to criticize those people who want to go on such an enterprising endeavor. Why, on Earth, would you
want to do that? That turns you from a silent observer into an hindrance to be overcome. Given that you don't have a dog in this fight, why are you an
obstructionist? Why can't you simply wave bon voyage, or even boycott the launch by sleeping in, and live the rest of your earth-bound life with a
snide sneer of superiority knowing you didn't risk YOUR life for such a voyage. But then, you were never compelled to anyway.

Well, you got two out of three correct. That's a pretty good percentage. First of all, you haven't proven your case. Your reasons for not going are
extremely weak. If you seriously think that every single point you have brought up has somehow been missed by those who are promoting this, then you
are calling THEM dumb clucks. The onus is upon you to prove your issues are actually serious ones, and you have not done that. Every single objection
you have brought up has been anticipated, thought about, and will be solved by the time they leave.

The second issue you got right is that you are smart enough to assess yourself as not being of a pioneering spirit. You don't have to be, of course.
We need people to stay home and till the fields. Regrettably, not everyone gets to go. Those who want to stay home will always be able to do so. If
you don't want to cross the river because you might drown of you attempt it, by all means stay at home. It would be a mistake for anyone to force you
to come along. You would be one helluva roomie, a constant Eeyore complaining about every bump in the road.

The real issue, though, is why you feel compelled to criticize those people who want to go on such an enterprising endeavor. Why, on Earth, would you
want to do that? That turns you from a silent observer into an hindrance to be overcome. Given that you don't have a dog in this fight, why are you an
obstructionist? Why can't you simply wave bon voyage, or even boycott the launch by sleeping in, and live the rest of your earth-bound life with a
snide sneer of superiority knowing you didn't risk YOUR life for such a voyage. But them, you were never compelled to anyway.

Exactly.

I hear people say the Radiation is too high without giving any figures, well in counter people have said exactly how much and how at worst it will
give only a 5% risk of cancer. Yet they still carry on saying the same crap without any concrete counter argument. Then have those saying theirs no
oxygen well others like me and jadestar have pointed out you can get oxygen from splitting water, then its there no water on mars and its been
countered pretty well by jadestar that mars has possibly big water reserves, yet again its still not good enough and so on and so on.

If you think mars colonisation is impossible fine but either present concrete scientific evidence with your opinion or keep out the way. Dont make
wild claims and dont try and sell your opinions as fact if you have no concrete backing and certainly dont try and get in the way.

Yes I think mars one will fail. Why? Not because I think mars colonsiation is impossible or even out of our current reach but purely based on there
buisness model and the fact that the major space agancys wont touch them, I dont think the infrastructure will be there to make the upkeep of a
private funded colony (based on mars ones model) sustainable. But I have no issue with them trying and the coloney failing may have the big benifit of
moveing things forward quicker. I also doubt it will be a catastrophic faliure either, likley it will just be the buisness going bust in which case
responsibility will end up on the plate of NASA or the ESA and force them into doing something, which is why I think it will be benificial that push
MAY be whats needed.

Can. Water has even been seen in equatorial regions where it was once thought was totally dry. 20 percent of Martian Soil is water.

Want water? Dig. If you heat up a cubic foot of Mars soil, you can harvest around two pints (one liter) of water. We know that now thanks to the
Curiosity rover.

Sure...but you didn't say how MUCH you had to heat it, eh? It's not free water. It's bound to minerals. 800C ought to do it. What's the specific
heat of Martian soil, I wonder. There's probably quite a bit of energy involved in heating a cubic foot of dirt to a dull red glow.

Additionally, there may be even bigger reserves of water deeper down so if they bring along a drill they might just tap into a well.

"may be" also involves the probability of "whoops". Maybe they could, it would stretch their lives out a bit. If it's full of perchlorates,
antimony or arsenic it'll need filtering or distillation, they really ought to take something along in case they happen to find water. BTW, my well
is fairly deep at the house and I'm in Florida, where it's generally pretty shallow. The apparatus was more than a core drill. It was quite bulky
and took some time, energy, and well casing. It was a bit more involved than a drill you can roll out in the back shelf of a rover. Maybe Mars has a
lot of shallow surface water.

Assuming they only plan on solar power they'd be fine, we know very well the solar flux for different times of the year at different places on Mars.
That's part of what the previous missions were sent there to find. They will have planned for this.

Beyond solar, they could just as well bring along a small nuclear power plant (google SNAP generator).

I recall several missions where the solar panels weren't quite up to par. It's not the sort of thing you can fix if the panel itself breaks. And,
yeah, I'm up on RTGs, but let's consider this. Your typical top of the line RTG puts out about 300W of electrical power. That's not a lot. It's
great for running computers and small water pumps. Not so hot when you need to heat a few hundred cubic feet of dirt to a dull red glow.

Not that you couldn't rig up something like a solar thermal water plant with aluminized mylar panels or something, but that's more weight and more
bulk on the way out there.

They'll have tools to fix them. They'll also have redundant systems for key things like life support.

Apollo 13.

I guess you don't know as much as someone like Robert Zubrin who has studied Mars for years and who is now part of the Mars One team.

Buying one of his books wouldn't be the worse thing in the world to bring you up to speed on the realities of what living on Mars would be like.

I'm not emotionally committed to the issue, either. I'm recalling Biosphere 2, it was a nice practice run encrusted with PhD's that swore they had
the last decimal place calculated. It failed badly. They were able to open the windows.

I hear people say the Radiation is too high without giving any figures, well in counter people have said exactly how much and how at worst it will
give only a 5% risk of cancer. Yet they still carry on saying the same crap without any concrete counter argument.

Sure...but you didn't say how MUCH you had to heat it, eh? It's not free water. It's bound to minerals. 800C ought to do it. What's the specific heat
of Martian soil, I wonder. There's probably quite a bit of energy involved in heating a cubic foot of dirt to a dull red glow.

One doesn't need to heat it to 800 c to extract water. The temperature at which water ice melts on Mars is not that much different from. In fact due
to the lower atmospheric pressure its been shown to sublimate quite easily.

Just go through ArXiv and type "Mars Water" in the search.

I suggest you preruse those links I posted for crazyewok.

"may be" also involves the probability of "whoops".

You do know that they just signed a contract with Lockheed-Martin to build a lander right? What do you think that lander is going to do? Take pretty
pictures? No, it's going to characterize the site, probably take along some ground penetrating radar and gamma ray spectrometer to reduce the
likelihood of whoops.

It's like the critics of this mission assume everyone involved is stupid or they haven't thought it out well. I've taken a look at the plan and like I
said, it is fairly well thought out technically.

Maybe they could, it would stretch their lives out a bit. If it's full of perchlorates, antimony or arsenic it'll need filtering or
distillation,

I'm pretty sure given Curiousity's findings they will be taking along filtering for perchlorates and whatnot. Again, that's why they are sending a
lander and other probes before the crew ever gets into a ship. Additionally the habitat and all the equipment they will need will be sent ahead of
them.

they really ought to take something along in case they happen to find water.

They will.

I recall several missions where the solar panels weren't quite up to par. It's not the sort of thing you can fix if the panel itself breaks

Which is why I don't think they would be wholly dependent on solar power. Beyond a certain power density they make no sense. A colony would require a
fairly large solar array on the surface as the colony grew the array would grow which would mean there would be more work which would have to be done
to maintain it through dust storms etc.

To me, the best option would be to plan on having solar power in addition to a small nuclear reactor.

[quote[And, yeah, I'm up on RTGs, but let's consider this. Your typical top of the line RTG puts out about 300W of electrical power. That's not a lot.
It's great for running computers and small water pumps. Not so hot when you need to heat a few hundred cubic feet of dirt to a dull red glow.

Where did I mention RTGs?

I am not talking about RTGs I am talking about a small nuclear reactor like this. SNAP reactors were
developed for the space program for just this type of scenario, long duration spaceflight and colonies.

Back to the future. If we could do it in 1960 then we can do it in 2025.

Apollo 13.

Survived. As did the people in the Mir fire (which was probably far more dangerous than Apollo 13 but you know, no big Hollywood movie was made about
it dramatizing it.....)

I'm not emotionally committed to the issue, either.

Nor am I to be honest. I just like to inform the misinformed. Denying ignorance and all of that....

I'm recalling Biosphere 2, it was a nice practice run encrusted with PhD's that swore they had the last decimal place calculated. It failed
badly. They were able to open the windows.

Equating Mars One to Biosphere 2 is like equating an actual space mission to space camp. There were almost zero scientists involved with Biosphere 2.
Yours is an apples to oranges comparison. Mars One just hired Robert Zubrin. Again, read his books if you want to comment from an informed
position.

It seems you like many people have forgotten that pioneering is not 100% a safe, sure thing, but then again, no one is asking you to go. Just don't
stand in the way of those who want to.

One doesn't need to heat it to 800 c to extract water. The temperature at which water ice melts on Mars is not that much different from. In fact due
to the lower atmospheric pressure its been shown to sublimate quite easily.

Just go through ArXiv and type "Mars Water" in the search.

I suggest you preruse those links I posted for crazyewok.

Actually, I did. The "2 pints per cubic foot" number is for liberating bound water from minerals. 835C was the number given.

Samples from the Rocknest aeolian deposit were heated to ~835°C under helium flow and evolved gases analyzed by Curiosity’s Sample Analysis at Mars
instrument suite. H2O, SO2, CO2, and O2 were the major gases released. Water abundance (1.5 to 3 weight percent) and release temperature suggest that
H2O is bound within an amorphous component of the sample

It doesn't say "there's 2% of water in the form of ice". That little phrase "release temperature" means it's stuck to some sort of mineral, the way
water ends up bound to gypsum, or they'd have said that the release temperature indicated it was in the form of water ice.

No, it's going to characterize the site, probably take along some ground penetrating radar and gamma ray spectrometer to reduce the likelihood of
whoops.

Handy.

It's like the critics of this mission assume everyone involved is stupid or they haven't thought it out well. I've taken a look at the plan and like I
said, it is fairly well thought out technically.

It's a plan with very little in the way of on-site testability before you pull the trigger. It's got lots of ways to screw up.

Where did I mention RTGs?

I am not talking about RTGs I am talking about a small nuclear reactor like this. SNAP reactors were
developed for the space program for just this type of scenario, long duration spaceflight and colonies.

All the SNAPs except 2, 8 and 10 WERE RTGs. And how much power did SNAP-10 put out? 500W. That's half a kW. That's not a giant step. Not that you
couldn't design something that would get the job done. Something like a SNAP-8 or SER would work, but you've got an entire design cycle doing that.
And you've got to get past the greenies who will crap their pants at the thought of a uranium hydride reactor going into orbit.

Survived. As did the people in the Mir fire (which was probably far more dangerous than Apollo 13 but you know, no big Hollywood movie was made about
it dramatizing it.....)

And it was in a system they were sure was ok. It wasn't, though. Every problem they HAVE they think doesn't exist until it happens. It was an
unrepairable catastrophic failure. If that happens on Mars, you're toast.

Nor am I to be honest. I just like to inform the misinformed. Denying ignorance and all of that....

I'm not misinformed at all. I just don't agree with you it's going to be a cakewalk that's all planned out.

Equating Mars One to Biosphere 2 is like equating an actual space mission to space camp

It was a problem people thought they had solved that actually applies here. Your Mars campers are going to have to grow food and have clean air and
water. Big complex designs that are deployed without a lot of incremental systems testing tend to have surprising errors. It's not the sort of thing
you'll just slap together with a few mouse clicks.

Look, I'm all for space travel. Trust me. I just don't agree that it's the sort of thing you can hum a couple of eggheads at and instantly have all
the bugs worked out, and it becomes a walk in the park. The more complicated the endeavor, the more ways for it to screw up in ways you didn't
anticipate.

Bedlam
Actually, I did. The "2 pints per cubic foot" number is for liberating bound water from minerals. 835C was the number given.

Right, my mistake.

Samples from the Rocknest aeolian deposit were heated to ~835°C under helium flow and evolved gases analyzed by Curiosity’s Sample Analysis at Mars
instrument suite. H2O, SO2, CO2, and O2 were the major gases released. Water abundance (1.5 to 3 weight percent) and release temperature suggest that
H2O is bound within an amorphous component of the sample

It doesn't say "there's 2% of water in the form of ice". That little phrase "release temperature" means it's stuck to some sort of mineral, the way
water ends up bound to gypsum, or they'd have said that the release temperature indicated it was in the form of water ice.

Correct.

However, there is water ice at the site near the The Martian north pole which Bas Lansdorp, the man who started MarsOne, mentioned early on.

So I was thinking specifically about poles while writing about water in general which was my mistake.

It's a plan with very little in the way of on-site testability before you pull the trigger. It's got lots of ways to screw up.

And there were lots of ways to screw up the Atlantic passage to "the New World". People still did it. What they can test, they will test but you're
right it's not 100% safe. There are many ways the trip to Mars or the environment of Mars can kill you. It is more unforgiving than Antarctica. But
none of this means we shouldn't go. To the contrary, it probably means we should go.

All the SNAPs except 2, 8 and 10 WERE RTGs. And how much power did SNAP-10 put out? 500W. That's half a kW. That's not a giant step. Not that you
couldn't design something that would get the job done. Something like a SNAP-8 or SER would work, but you've got an entire design cycle doing that.
And you've got to get past the greenies who will crap their pants at the thought of a uranium hydride reactor going into orbit.

One could simply explain that Russia has lofted reactors into orbit successfully and that the mission depends on adequate power. And yes I was
thinking of SNAP-8 or better.

And it was in a system they were sure was ok. It wasn't, though. Every problem they HAVE they think doesn't exist until it happens. It was an
unrepairable catastrophic failure. If that happens on Mars, you're toast.

No argument there. Redundant systems for crucial things like life support, power etc are part of the plan though.

I'm not misinformed at all. I just don't agree with you it's going to be a cakewalk that's all planned out.

When did I ever characterize it as a cakewalk?

I myself have serious doubts about the first mission, but they have little to do with technology and more to do with the Hunger Games style crew
selection.

It was a problem people thought they had solved that actually applies here. Your Mars campers are going to have to grow food and have clean air and
water. Big complex designs that are deployed without a lot of incremental systems testing tend to have surprising errors. It's not the sort of thing
you'll just slap together with a few mouse clicks.

And if you live in the US your tax dollars already paid for much of the research on how to put together such systems. See, they've been planning to go
to Mars since about 1970, were supposed to be there in 1985 and have done study after study on various aspects of how to live on Mars.

We can continue to study it for another 45 years if you want. But at some point someone has to just say, "right, let's do it." Perhaps we've reached
that point. I think we have. And if they fail, so be it. People ARE going to die in the course of these types of high risk missions. But people are
also going to survive. And the reward of their survival may help ensure humanity's survival.

Well worth it in my opinion.

Look, I'm all for space travel. Trust me. I just don't agree that it's the sort of thing you can hum a couple of eggheads at and instantly have
all the bugs worked out, and it becomes a walk in the park. The more complicated the endeavor, the more ways for it to screw up in ways you didn't
anticipate.

edit on 10-1-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

Eggheads? Is this like 1960 or something?

Like I said, these problems have been studied relentlessly for ages. A lot of study goes on at NASA Ames, who by the way.....

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.